CHARGE OF ARSON

Te Aroha News, Volume XLI, Issue 65781, 28 February 1925, Page 5

CHARGE OF ARSON

BOY BEFORE THE COURT TE AROHA WEST FIRE (Before Messrs H. Jackson and J. R. Nicol, J.’sP.) A boy aged 13 was charged at the Magistrate’s Court, Te Aroha, yesterday with having at Te Aroha West, on February 14th, wilfully set fire to a dwellinghouse occupied by Thomas Trow, and the property of John Frear, and thereby committing arson. Mr G. Gilchrist appeared for the accused and Sergeant McLean prosecuted on behalf of the Police.

John Frear, farmer, Herriesville, stated he had a homestead on the Waiorongomai-Maungakawa road valued at about £6OO. The house was occupied by Thomas Trow. He had known Trow for about 20 months. The house was destroyed by fire on the 14th of February. On the 12th and 13th witness was haymaking, assisted by Trow and a number of neighbours. He passed the house on the morning of the fire on his way to the hayfield. He noticed nothing unusual. He and his two sons were the first on the hayfield that morning. Trow arrived soon after. Just after Trow arrived someone said “What is that smoke down at the house?’’ They all looked up and then ran to the scene of the fire. It would be about 9 o’clock then. When they arrived flames were coming out of the back door. On going to the front fire was issuing from there „also. The whole building was on fire and was subsequently burned to the ground. The insurance was £3OO in the State Office. A few articles of furniture in the house belonged to witness, and th balance was owned by Mr Trow. Witness had no insurance on the furniture belonging to him and his loss in this direction would be about £2O. He knew accused but was not sure that he saw the. boy when on the way to the field. On going back to the fire he saw the boy when about halfway. He spoke to him and asked what was the trouble. The boy said: , “The house .is on fire. I went in and , got- the matches and then started for | the hayfield. On looking back I saw j smoke and noticed that the chimney was on fire. I went back but could not get in. I then came to tell you.’’ • Witness had known the boy about 6 months. He seemed of about the av- j erage intellignece. Witness knew no reason why he should destroy the, house. , Witness total loss was about £320.

To Mr Gilchrist; He always found the boy of good behaviour. Thomas Trow, farm labourer, said he was employed by Mr Frear at the time of the fire. Accused was about 13 years of age, and had been diving with witness for about seven months. Witness remembered the 14th inst. His family had gone to Auckland that day. His brother Leonard drove them to the station, and he had with him on the farm that day another brother (Henry) and accused. Accused knew there was no one in the house. He was the last to leave the house. He could not say whether any fires were burning at that time. On leaving the house he went to the hayfield. On the way he discovered he had no matches and sent accused back to get some, telling him where to find them. On their return in about 15 minutes they met the boy, who said the house was on fire. He (witness) went to the house to see what could be done. They could do nothing on account of the flames and smoke. Witness’ furniture was valued by him at £4OO and was insured for £2OO with the Alliance Co. Witness asked the boy how the house caught fire ar.d he said he could not enter the house for smoke. When asked how he got the matches he said he could not put the fire out so he grabbed the matches and ran to tell them. Accused said nothing to witness as to how the fire started. All the furniture affected by the policy was in the house at the time of the fire. Accused was of good behaviour. To Mr Gilchrist: He told the accused repeatedly not to smoke. Accused may have got hold of a cigarette when he went back to the house. The fuel box in the kitchen was generally full of wood. There may have been , paper or rubbish in it. A curtain hung down over the top of the box. If a match had been carelessly thrown on to the pile it would set fire to the paper and curtain. Accused had been obedient and well behaved. He had no grudge the witness knew of. To Sergt. McLean: He had warned accused about the danger of matches. He effected the insurance on Christmas Eve last for £2OO. No additions had been made to that amount since. Constable Alec Howard Barnes

said that on the 16th inst., with Constable Monson, he went to the farm owned by Mr Frear in order to make - inquiries. He interviewed the accused, who denied knowledge of the fire, but later admitted that he had caused it. He was again present on the 20th with Detective Sweeney. He took down a statement from the accused, and Constable Monson was present when the latter portion was made. To Mr Gilchrist: The conversation with accused took place in Mr Monson’s car, and lasted about an hour. He was asking accused what took place. It would take all that time to get a statement. It was his full statement submitted. He asked the accused if he started the fire and took down his answers. Asked as to the statement, witness said he put the answers down as the boy gave them. Witness could not recall what questions were asked.

To Sergt. McLean: The statement was quite a voluntary one, and the boy signed it. Re-examined by Mr Gilchrist: Other questions may have been asked besides “Is that all?” or “Is that the truth?” He did ask the accused questions in order to get his statement. He arrested accused on the 16th inst., after he had admitted he had caused the fire.

To Sergt. McLean: When the statement was made witness was only investigating the cause of the fire. At that time no suspicion attached to accused, and. it was only after the boy had admitted the offence that he was arrested. Constable Monson stated that on 16th inst. he accompanied Constable Barnes when he interviewed accused as to the cause of the fire. No suspicion attached to the accused at the time. During the course of the inquiry certain admissions* were made. Witness corrobarated Constable Barnes’ evidence. Accused was arrested on his admission that he had caused the fire, and made no reply to the charge. Witness was present when Detective Sweeney interviewed the accused.

To Mr Gilchrist: Constable Barnes was writing in pencil when taking the statement. He could not remember what questions were asked accused. He had to be questioned to a certain extent to get the statement. His suspicions first arose when the boy said he had got hold of the paper and set alight to it on the hearth. When the statement was completed the accused was arrested and was then given the customary warning. Accused was not warned before that or subsequently by witness.

Sergt. McLean then submitted that the boy should be committed for trial.

Mr Gilchrist submitted that the charge should be dismissed as a prima facie case had not been made out. The accused had not wilfully set fire to the house. The accused was only a child and it was only a childish prank at the most. It was not accused intention to set fire to the house at all.

The accused, who pleaded not guilty and reserved his defence, was committed for trial at the Supreme Court at Hamilton on June 9th.

Mr Gilchrist asked for bail, which was granted in one surety of £IOO and the accused £SO.